CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION

Question 1

CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION

Generally

Answer 1

In general, Congress has broad power to control federal jurisdiction based on Article III—there is only one case that rejects Congress’ jurisdictional stripping power—but there are also external limits that prevent Congress from encroaching on individual rights based on the Bill of Rights, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and Habeas Corpus (Suspension Clause).

1. Congress has determined which state court cases are eligible for Supreme Court review.
   a. Congress has BROAD discretion to limit, and even remove, Supreme Court APPELLATE jurisdiction. One view on limitation: Congress can’t limit essential functions of appellate jurisdiction.
   i. Ex parte McCardle (Congress could remove jurisdiction in this case because the habeas petition could still be brought under the Judiciary Act of 1789).
   - No need to investigate motive.
2. Congress has SUBTANTIAL but not UNLIMTED power to alter APPELLATE jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
   a. Congress CANNOT add ORIGINAL jurisdiction.
   i. Marbury v. Madison (no Supreme Court ability to review writ of mandamus because no original jurisdiction).
   b. The Supreme Court can fight to find that Congress did not succeed in fully STRIPPING it of jurisdiction based on external limits.
   i. Ex parte Yerger (Court found a way to hear the case, despite Congressional intent to take away jurisdiction through the Repealer Act because plaintiff must have way to bring habeas claim).
   c. Congress can remove Supreme Court jurisdiction, but it CANNOT TELL THE COURT HOW TO RULE and violate separation of powers. See United States v. Klein (Congress impermissibly infringed on the power of the executive branch by limiting the effect of a Presidential pardon).
   i. Can’t control how federal courts apply rules of decision.

Question 2

Congress Has the Power to:

Answer 2

1. Withdraw jurisdiction of lower federal courts to entertain a defined set of issues (Article III, Sec. I).
   a. “Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and Congress may from time to time establish lower federal courts.”
2. Create issue-based exceptions to Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction (Article III, Sec. II(2)).
   a. “In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction with such exceptions and under such regulations as such the Congress shall make.”
3. Simultaneously strip both lower federal courts and Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain certain claims.
   a. But see Ex parte Yerger (Congress still has external limits on its jurisdictional stripping power and the Suspension Clause requires that criminal defendants have access to habeas corpus).

Question 3

INTERNAL LIMITS ON CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

Answer 3

Internal Limits:
Is Congress violating its Article III limits? Probably not as long it is not adding original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

• Article III describes original and appellate jurisdiction of courts (Congress’ plenary power over the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction and over lower federal courts’ original jurisdiction).
  i. Only case striking down a jurisdiction stripping statute based in part on internal Article III limits.
  a. See US v. Klein (distinguished from McCardle because Congress is trying to act like a court, so not jurisdictional stripping as much as an improper directive at the court).

Question 4

EXTERNAL LIMITS ON CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

Answer 4

External Limits
Is Congress taking away opportunities to bring constitutional claims?

• Bill of Rights, Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, Habeas Corpus.
  i. Battaglia v. GM Corporation (Congress could not restrict jurisdiction in way to prevent all courts from hearing claim of rights of parties to private employment by passing Portal to Portal Act because due process violation).
  ii. Ex parte Yerger (Congress couldn’t withdraw jurisdiction from all the federal courts because the Suspension Clause guarantees some form of federal habeas review).
  a. Another example from Burnham: Congress could not exclude (or “except”) from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction all cases involving, say, Canadian nationals residing in the US, because that would run afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment, an external limit.

Question 5

CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY OF SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION

Answer 5

CONGRESS HAS SUBSTANTIAL BUT NOT UNLIMITED POWER TO ALTER APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT AND CONGRESS CANNOT ADD ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

In general, when a Congressional act is repealed, then functions as if it never existed.

• See Ex parte McCardle (Congress has power to make exceptions to appellate jurisdiction, so passage of Repealer Act prevents plaintiff from appealing to SCOTUS for habeas review).
  i. But note: Congressional acts affect only appeals and appellate jurisdiction authorized by the act, not jurisdiction conferred upon by the Constitution. See Ex parte Yerger (Congress couldn’t withdraw jurisdiction from all the federal courts because the Suspension Clause guarantees some form of federal habeas review).
• Together, McCardle and Yerger stand for the principle that Congress needs to be CLEAR about what it is doing and as long as there is SOME AVENUE to pursue constitutionally granted claims, stripping is okay (external limit).

Question 6

CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY OF LOWER FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION

Answer 6

CONGRESS HAS BROAD POWERS TO RESTRICT OR ELIMINATE LOWER FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION

In general, Congress has broad powers to restrict or eliminate court jurisdiction. It is debated whether there are any Article III limitations. Note Sheldon v. Sill (Congress can create original jurisdiction for lower federal courts but cannot expand jurisdiction beyond Article III limits).

• Congress can withdraw SOME, but not ALL judicial oversight over habeas corpus.
  i. As long as there is path for plaintiff to bring claim, then it is OK if Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction.
  a. See Felker v. Turpin (requirement that all writs be appealed from district court to court of appeals, not SCOTUS, is constitutional because not complete suspension of habeas, but merely shifting gatekeeping to court of appeals).
  b. But see Boumediene v. Bush (stripping provision of Military Commission Act that strips all federal courts of jurisdiction to review detentions of non-citizens held as enemy combatants unconstitutional because suspends habeas).
• Congress can limit jurisdiction of federal courts, by limiting SUBJECTS hose courts may hear even if they fall within scope of what Constitution allows, but cannot EXPAND jurisdiction of lower federal courts BEYOND Article III.
  i. See Sheldon v. Sill (upholding provision of Judiciary Act excluding assignees of notes from qualifying for diversity jurisdiction unless diversity existed between original parties).
• Congress cannot force courts to REOPEN a FINAL CASE (i.e. when a case has passed beyond the possibility of Congressional action, the case and controversy clause prohibits the political department from acting to change the outcome because this violates the principle of finality).
  i. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm (violation of separation of powers, amendment functioned to reverse SCOTUS decision and retroactively granted relief to party already denied relief).